Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Written evidence to be reported to the House

LPGI 05 Electoral Reform Society

The Committee deliberated in private.

On resuming—

Christopher Chope: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to this sitting of the Committee. I remind participants that the acoustics in the room leave something to be desired, so I encourage people to speak up. I welcome three Ministers—I do not know what a collective of Ministers is called: I suggest a mint of Ministers. Thank you for coming along this afternoon.
We shall go straight into the first question from Alistair Burt.

Q141Alistair Burt (North-East Bedfordshire) (Con): We have had a most interesting opening to our proceedings on the Bill through the witness procedure. I want to begin this afternoon with a general question directed at the Minister for Local Government about what we have heard. The Bill has been set in the context of the nature of government in this country and the concerns that are expressed outside about the powers that people have locally to make decisions and to make things happen, and a recognition of the frustration that is sometimes out there. We have seen the Government’s determination to do something about it being challenged by some of the witnesses, who would have liked them to go further. I would therefore like to ask the Minister, in the context of listening to the evidence sessions and taking part in them, have you changed your opinion on anything that you have heard about? Have queries been raised in your mind about the balance of devolution that you have reached? Does the witness procedure mean that you will be thinking about the Bill in a way that you would not have been without that procedure?

Phil Woolas:   First, Mr. Chope, I thank you and wish you well in the Chair. We are very proud to be the first Ministers to give evidence to a Standing Committee.
 Alistair, could I say what a clever question that was? Government Departments have relationships with each other, as well as with Parliament and, in our case, with local government. Our strategy has been to ensure that Government across Whitehall come with us. We are trying to join up the governance and delivery of services at local level, so it is necessary that the consultation and the effort of that consultation are deep and broad and real. By the end of the consultation on the White Paper, we were being criticised for having taken too long. We therefore saw it as a sign of success.
 It would be inconsistent and dishonest to say that the evidence that we have heard has not influenced thinking. There are a number of areas where the Government genuinely have an open mind about how best to achieve the objectives on which we think there is a consensus. We have spent particular effort in building a consensus across the parties in the Local Government Association. I was particularly pleased by its representatives’ evidence on the first of their three major points. I cannot say that, and then not take its second point seriously. So the answer is yes. I personally think that it has been valuable and I hope that this sitting is, too. I am conscious of not wanting to take up all of your time.

Q142Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD): The invite or direct question has been one on which witnesses have commented. You have commented on it at different stages with perhaps slightly different voices. Will you tell us where the Government’s thinking is now about direct?

Phil Woolas:   When we set out the invitation to propose, we were—and we remain—committed to a genuinely permissive regime. We did not wish to adopt a one-size-fits-all model because there is a paradox between devolution and equal treatment. We cannot genuinely say that we are devolving for local decision making and then say, “This is how you are going to do it.” Previous reviews, particularly the Banham review, had a role within that process for the boundary committee, so that it could have the power of direction to ensure that, if a proposal for unitary were to be adopted, it was fair for the whole area that was affected—that is, for the neighbouring councils—it was robust and it met the criteria in the proposing area. It is clear that there is support for that power among some of the people who are proposing.
It is equally clear that there is a suspicion—let me put it that way—that that power could be used in a different way. The Local Government Association made that point clear on an all-party basis. Our policy intention was to allow a window of opportunity for proposals for unitary, but to close that window, not in haste, but so as not to allow an undue period of uncertainty. All local government knows that that is damaging for it.
Representations have been made by the Local Government Association. We accept its point. We are working on parliamentary counsel instruction to have a power of direction that is defined in both geography and time to the satisfaction of the LGA. Indeed, that was a major issue that came up on Second Reading. It is not our intention to impose change. I think that the evidence now backs up that point, although there is a raging debate out there in some councils and motives are often ascribed that are not intended. We intend to listen to the points that some hon. Members madeon Second Reading and well as those made by the LGA.

Q143Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Devonport) (Lab): In the regulatory impact assessment to the local government White Paper, the Government accept that the costs indicated for restructuring are broad brush. Obviously, we have seen some of the criticism produced by academics of the way in which the costs are being assessed. Some interesting figures have been bandied about.
Do you accept that some figures that are based clearly on what happened in and around Banham probably cannot be moved across to the current situation because local authorities are now much more under the microscope in terms of their financial probity and so on. Therefore, those authorities that are likely to be going forward will be doing so from a much better informed position than some of those that had looked at it under Banham.

Phil Woolas:   There is a wide spectrum of opinion in academia about costs. One of the obvious points in local government finance is the ability to compare like with like. We set our policy of inviting proposals within two frameworks. I described the first in the previous answer. The second framework ensures that thenewly created financial regime benefits the counciltax payer and does not jeopardise but indeed supports the Government’s overall macro-economic policy, particularly the famous golden rule.
The invitation therefore contains five criteria, including that proposals must be self-financing within five years; must be met from within the resource envelope of the local authority or authorities concerned—in other words, they must be self-financing through efficiency savings or through reserves; and must result in a council tax that is equalised down if it is across district borders, and cannot be greater if it is in a single transfer. The context of that is that the up-front costs contribute towards local government total borrowing because of their impact on reserves and assets. When one asks, “How can you say that there can only be a limited number and make sure that they are self-financing?” the answer is that we have to look—as my colleagues and I do anyway—at the total local government borrowing position.

Q144 Alison Seabeck: Were the same constraints imposed on local authorities after the changes from Banham? You are being quite clear and tight about it.

Phil Woolas: From memory, they were not, but I would like to seek expert assistance.

Paul Rowsell:   In the process of the Banhamreview, the Local Government Commission made recommendations that were either accepted or rejected on the basis of all the factors. Finance was just one of the factors, and there were no requirements as now. Indeed, for some of the new unitaries set up then, the payback periods were about 10 years.

Q145 Alistair Burt:  I have a couple of questions. First, there have been 26 proposals for unitary status. The White Paper said that you were looking for eight that you might have the opportunity to process. Are you going to stick to eight, or are you going to try to make the most of those 26? Surely the more there are to consider, the more unacceptable it is in terms of public expenditure?

Phil Woolas: The 26 proposals are in some cases mutually contradictory. Hence the first question on the power to direct, the controversy and the point that although it is always desirable to achieve consensus and have a permissive devolved regime, the question always arises, “What do you do if people disagree?” whether at ward level, neighbourhood level, borough level, district or county level.
The eight figure comes from a calculation of the potential impact on local government borrowing. If assets and reserves are used to fund up-front costs, that has an impact on the balance sheet and on the golden rule. That is where the eight comes from. Without knowing where the eight, six or 10 proposals would come from, and without having the analysis of that, it is impossible to say exactly, which is why the Secretary of State used the phrase “around eight”.
The constraints upon us are, quite rightly, the viability of the proposals and the macro-economic picture. The chances of there being more than eight are there, and the chances of there being less than eight are there, depending on that analysis. Once we had said that we were asking for invitations, apart from the macro-economic context, we do not see that it is our role to determine how many there should be.

Q146 Alistair Burt:  My second question relates to general costs. You listened to the evidence from the chairman of Conservative district council groups. He said that in his experience no restructuring had ever saved any money. Do you have any experience of savings achieved through local government restructuring?

Phil Woolas:   Personally? East Riding of Yorkshire—that is one that I have studied. In my view—I think it would be shared by my predecessors in all Governments—when you make changes in local government finance, there is normally a built-in creep upwards. It is therefore incumbent on Government to make sure that that does not happen. For example, our new burdens policy is a good policy, which rightly recognises that councils may be given extra responsibilities and that it is incumbent on Government to provide the resources to meet them. However, it is a net new burdens policy—savings as well as costs are generated by changes. Precisely because it is a bottom-up process that we are proposing, it is incumbent on councils, and not the Government, to prove the financial case, and we have built that in to the criteria. That is how I see it.

Q147 Alistair Burt:  Do you think that we would be right to wary of those who wave cost savings at their electors as the potential good news behind a restructuring, going by all our collective experience?

Phil Woolas:   The answer to that is yes.

Q148 Andrew Stunell:  I guess that that brings us logically to the next point, which is about the broad cross-section of support that will be taken into account. You heard some evidence from Unlock Democracy that suggested a recall trigger, if you like, and plans that would allow for referendums. What is your view on those suggestions? More broadly, what will your approach be to developing knowledge of what a broad cross-section of support really is?

Phil Woolas:   Thanks for that question—it is very important. We have tried to set out a timetable that meets the objective of opening the window of opportunity and then closing it, so that we do not get the uncertainties. The uncertainties can be very real—they can be about staff deciding to move jobs or contracts going unsigned. Although there are benefits from the process, there are disadvantages, of which I am very conscious. On the other hand, public support for change is the ultimate arbitrator. If there is no public support, the question of how it could be done arises.
We have allowed in the timetable a window of opportunity, which closed on 25 January. Only a council could propose change in that time. If a council has not proposed change, there can be no change, other than by the direct all-county solution that we have talked about. The second stage in the process is the assessment of a proposal against the criteria, which is subject to legal challenge should we stray—in other words, we have to consider whether there is a prima facie case against the criteria. The third stage is what is called, in the modern world, stakeholder consultation, which will include all interested parties, especially the public.
There are therefore two built-in safety mechanisms. First, there has to be a demonstration of public support. A feature of our permissive regime is that councils can go about doing that in different ways. Secondly, the third period coincides with local elections. I expect that local elections in those areas where a prima facie case has been accepted will provide significant guidance to the councils that are putting forward proposals.

Q149 Andrew Stunell:  But by that time, will it not be too late?

Phil Woolas:   No, because the consultation of interested parties—an expression I much prefer to “stakeholders”—and the decision on whether the proposals will go ahead, which is subject to our consideration of the Bill, cannot happen until after that date.

Q150Patrick Hall (Bedford) (Lab): I want to give the Minister an opportunity to be clear about the discussion that we have just had about the understandable caution that we need to apply regarding alleged savings—the issues that came out of questioning from Alistair Burt.
Presumably, the Minister would be prepared to consider the possibility that savings may be obtained if a council can demonstrate that clearly. I know of one bid that claims that the council concerned can meet quite a few of the costs from reserves. It is self-financing not only in terms of long-term revenue savings, but up front from reserves. That is a point that must be considered. Is it not also the case that it is not just a question of justifying possible unitary bids in terms of immediate or longer-term savings but of making more effective use of what money there is? That is what local government should be about too.

Phil Woolas:   In answer to the previous question whether there was evidence, I cited East Riding. It is clear that the potential savings from going unitary are significant. We know that from closer working now and from previous experience, but by putting the onus on the council to show that the savings can be made and allowing interested parties and then the Government to test that, we think that we can get a much more accurate picture of the real potential savings than has been the case in some of the previous local government reorganisations.
Ultimately, one would not be doing the exercise if one did not think that it was necessary. The chairman of the Conservative district councils gave good and strong evidence. He and I disagreed in that exchange on where the pressure for the process was coming from. The pressure was coming from local councils. The Municipal Journal reported a robust survey of chief executives of district councils—I have no predilection for districts or counties, but in this case it was a survey of districts—that showed that 80 per cent. of chief executives believed that significant savings could be made by the unitary process. I think that figure was in the June 2005 edition.

Q151Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): I want to move on, if I can, to joint waste authorities. We have not seen the amendment yet, but I have seen the press release and read what was said on Second Reading. I am just interested to know why the provision was not originally in the Bill. What has changed since?

Phil Woolas:   The proposal stems from the question “Why doesn’t the power already exist?” Most people assume on a common-sense level that a group of districts in a county could have a joint waste authority. Metropolitan areas have had joint waste authorities for donkey’s years. We consulted people—the Association of District Treasurers in particular had strong views—and there are some strong examples of where it is working in the real world. Hampshire county and districts is one of the areas that we looked at in particular.
We will introduce the amendment, therefore, in response to the work of local councils, particularly the Innovation Forum, a group of the top-rated councils. Part of our strategy is to build up expertise in local government that can be shared. As the work was coming through—it published its report in summer 2006—we were not quite ready.

Bob Neill: That is fair enough. I had the pleasure of being a member of a joint waste authority once.

Phil Woolas:   There was a report in a national newspaper this Monday that said that the joint waste authorities were unelected quangos that were going to fine you for throwing out your rubbish. I do not think that that would be the view of the leader of Hampshire county council.

Christopher Chope: That is a useful point at which to move on to part 2, because it deals with election—

Q152 Robert Neill:  Mr. Chope, before we move on there is one point I want to follow through specifically in the London context of the joint waste authorities. The draft release from the Department says:
“Any group of two or more authorities will be able to apply”.
Is that constrained by county or regional boundaries, or is it possible to have a cross-county or cross-regional joint waste authority?

Phil Woolas:   It is possible to go across. Indeed, one of the things that the Innovation Forum is pushing is co-operation across the upper-tier boundaries, which already exists, of course, in the large metropolitan areas. So, the answer is yes.

Q153 Robert Neill:  And that could apply to London as well.

Phil Woolas:   Well, there is separate legislation in the Greater London Authority Bill. It is a very important question, because the LGA’s evidence and our own view are that, alongside social care, waste and waste disposal is the biggest cost pressure on local authorities, so we have an important duty to create a legislative framework that helps to ease that pressure. Again, we have an open mind on that. In harsh political terms I do not think that the subject turns on the electorate, if I can put it that way, but it is important.

Q154 Robert Neill:  You can obviously see the situation in parts of the Thames Gateway, for example, and in outer London boroughs and their neighbouring districts.

Phil Woolas:   Yes, I studied the figures on disposal and recycling rates and the fees regime for Greater London when we were preparing the GLA Bill, and came to the conclusion that perhaps I should get out more. But it is important, because in that instance you have also got to ensure that you incentivise good practice and you do not want to use structures to change. There are also strong representations from local authorities across the spectrum in London on that, and as we are a devolutionary Government I have to listen to them.

Christopher Chope: We now come to part 2.

Q155 Andrew Stunell:  The proposals to give councils the flexibility to move to whole-council elections have been welcomed by practically everybody. I think there is surprise from witnesses—and certainly from me—about why you have not made that a two-way process. I should be interested to hear what the Government’s approach to that is.

Angela E. Smith:   I think it comes back to the argument or discussion that we were having earlier about the balance between devolution and accountability and stability. The view of the Government was that, once you had made a decision to have an electoral arrangement, you should stick with those arrangements. To have the constant switching back could undermine the process by which the electorate know where they stand and who they are voting for. It will be a matter for the council to decide which form of elections they want.

Q156 Andrew Stunell:  But it is not open to a council that has all-out elections to switch to thirds or halves.

Angela E. Smith:   No, I think the Government’s preference would be for all-out elections. Indeed, the Electoral Commission, in its report back in 2004, recommended all-out elections on a four-yearly cycle. But it is open to councils that elect by thirds to go to all-out elections if they choose to do so.

Q157 Andrew Stunell:  So your minds are not open to having a process in the opposite direction.

Angela E. Smith:   No, the Bill allows the process of change. It is about accountability and transparency for the electorate and our view is that all-out elections provide that in the best form. But for councils that do not have that system and prefer to keep the thirds—or, indeed, in some it is even halves—they can retain that system if they wish to do so.

Q158Lynda Waltho (Stourbridge) (Lab): The Bill gives councils the power to create single-member wards if they move to a four-yearly cycle. Concerns have been expressed about the possibility of that deterring people from coming forward as candidates—perhaps if they feel that the job is going to become far too onerous. What is your take on that?

Angela E. Smith:   I do not think it will deter people. It did not deter anybody in this room from coming forward for a single-member division. I was a county councillor in a single-member division, and the proposal will increase accountability and develop the relationship with the electorate. Indeed, what we are trying to do through the Bill’s devolutionary process is put a councillor at the heart of their community, as a community champion. If you look at the processes and the powers in the Bill, you will see that it creates a different kind of role for a local councillor—a more elevated one.
Therefore, my view is that single-member wards would encourage more candidates to come forward because of the nature of the role. If the council wishes to have single-member wards, that is a different kind of relationship with the electorate. Again, it will be up to the council to decide, but I cannot see any reason why such wards would put someone off standing. Indeed, it could enhance the desire of people to do so.

Q159 Alistair Burt:  Could I pick up on this? You started by comparing the proposal for single-member wards with our roles, but we are full-time and we are paid—the public would consider perfectly handsomely—for what we do as single Members in our own constituencies. However, the whole point is that most councillors are not full-time. Many of them are carrying on another role elsewhere. Even if they are retired, they are doing something else.
The point is that we if load more and more on to the shoulders of people who are standing for a role in their local community for which financial gain is not their primary motivation, are we making that role harder and harder by putting more onus on them? That is the comparison. It is not with us, but with people who are busy. Are you suggesting that there should be more full-time, professional councillors? Is that what the Government would like?

Angela E. Smith:   I think you might be misunderstanding what I am saying. No one is suggesting that a local councillor should take on the same kind of role that a Member of Parliament does. It is quite clearly defined what the different roles are. The complaint that we get from councillors is that they want more responsibility. You would not be talking about replicating the current size of wards, which have three members. They would be smaller, roughly a third of that size. Therefore, I cannot see how the proposal would increase the work load of councillors. What it does is balance the relationship between the councillor and their division as it does with county councillors. However, at the end of the day, it would be a matter for the council itself to decide if it wants to go down that route or not. The councillors, who know the work load in their areas, will make that decision. Does that increase the work load and make it more difficult to recruit councillors? I think the answer is no.

Q160 Alistair Burt:  If some of the districts go into larger unitary authorities, I cannot imagine that there will be the same number of councillors representing the area that there would have been in the past. Therefore I think that some will find themselves with larger electorates, but we will see.

Angela E. Smith:   But that would be a matter for the council.

Christopher Chope: That brings us to part 3.

Q161Sir Peter Soulsby (Leicester, South) (Lab): In the Bill, the Government are offering a very narrow range of governance options to local government. Why such a narrow range? Why not allow a degree of discretion beyond that range, particularly perhaps to adopt what we have heard from the Members and indeed witnesses— namely the option of going to a modified and modernised committee structure?

Angela E. Smith:   First, those councils with enhanced committee structures—all but one of them are the small councils—will be able to keep those structures. However, the Government’s view was that you need strong leadership and all the evidence suggests that the best councils have strong leadership. There is a choice between the three different models that we feel can best drive improvements and give the capacity and ability for the leadership that local authorities need.

Q162 Sir Peter Soulsby:  I am very interested to hear the assertion that there is clear evidence that the best councils have strong leadership governance models. I am not quite sure where that evidence is because it is certainly not evidence that I have ever seen.

Angela E. Smith:   There is clear evidence that strong leadership is important to local authorities. The three models that we have identified are ones that we think will provide strong leadership for local authorities. It will be up to councils to choose which of those models they feel best suits their circumstances and is most appropriate to them. I think there is clarity. We are talking about the accountability of place-shaping local authorities and the models provide for all the things that we are looking for within local authorities.

Q163 Alistair Burt:  Minister, your answer comes to the heart of this Bill and some of the comments that we have heard from the witnesses. In its written evidence, Unlock Democracy says, “The Government have made much of their belief in devolving power, but seem unwilling in the last instance to actually let go.” I made exactly that point during the Second Reading debate. As Tony Hancock would have said, “That could have been me talking.”
Your answer just now was that the models are those that you feel give strong leadership, and that the proposals are those that you feel to be best for local authorities. Who cares? Why do no you not give people the chance to say what they feel is good for them? There could not be a clearer example of your retaining control than when you say, “We will offer you only these models because”—as you rightly say—“ they are the ones that we feel give strong leadership.” Why should you not take the risk of allowing people to decide? If electors have bad leadership, they will make that fact plain. So why not allow them the further option of making their choice about leadership? Why be so prescriptive?

Angela E. Smith:   We did not pluck the proposals out of thin air, nor did we dream them up sitting around in Eland house. In 2005, there was a survey of councillors, officers and others engaged with local authorities—the word “stakeholders” was used but I am trying to avoid it. More than half the councillors and nearly three quarters of the officers considered that, under the new arrangements, compared with the old committee structure, the executive would be more effective in articulating a vision for the area. That was in response to informationthat we got back from councillors and officers of local authorities.

Q164 Alistair Burt:  Yes, but I submit to you that, even on the figures that you have just given, 50 per cent. of councillors did not agree.

Angela E. Smith:   More than half did.

Q165 Alistair Burt:  There was a strong sense, from those who want the proposals to proceed, that the measures are all about effective leadership, as you say, but that is not the only purpose of being a councillor, nor of a council. We heard from Back Benchers on Second Reading and we have heard from witnesses the sense that councillors feel that they are out of the loop and have lost their opportunity to contribute. That was not necessarily discovered as a result of any of the surveys; the surveys were all about how to administer power. But ultimately you could get rid of all the councils and run everything yourself, which would be very strong leadership, but not very good.
If you are convinced of what you say, and if the facts support you, let people choose. If 95 per cent. of councils opted for one of the strong leadership models that you are presenting, your point would be proved, but why not allow them to decide?

Angela E. Smith:   Your point about the role of councillors is interesting and one that we have taken on board. We should see it in the context of the Bill as a whole, which will enhance the role of all councillors. Many of us in this room have served as councillors, and so I entirely take the point that nobody becomes a councillor because they want to be more efficient and effective; people become councillors because they want to shape, improve and contribute to their community. A balance between a strong executive along the lines of the three models that have been outlined in the Bill and the White Paper, and the other measures on overview and scrutiny, community call for action, and the role of the front line councillor—taken together—gives the place-shaping role that makes the proposals truly evolutionary. It takes power away from the centre and gives it to local councils. I do not accept that, because there is a choice of only three models, the Executive are taking power away from local authorities.

Q166 Andrew Stunell:  We heard evidence from the LGA that suggested that the model of a directly elected executive was not exactly what they first thought of. That model seems to have quite a lot of problems and difficulties attached, and no doubt we shall explore them. Will the Minister comment on how that model came to be included? Other evidence that we have heard suggested that there should be a way to allow the public to endorse a new governance model, whereas the Bill goes in the opposite direction—for instance, by removing the right of referendum on the creation of a mayor. It is about the model and the endorsement.

Phil Woolas: Thank you for that question; it gives us the opportunity to clarify things. As has just been described, we discussed different leadership models. There was a debate in the country on whether it should be possible to impose a mayor. We decided against that because it was inconsistent with our general policy, and Alistair Burt has probed us on the boundaries of that.
The consultation with councils, which as I said was deep and broad, asked councils what they thought. They asked us for this model. Part of the debate on Second Reading and elsewhere has criticised the Government for the potential pitfalls, and some have pointed out the advantages. That may be true—this Committee must discuss how we can ensure that the rules work—but whether a council chooses that option is up to the council knowing the pros and cons. The model came from councils such as Stockton, and other councils are discussing it in quite exciting ways.
The point is that if we are genuinely devolving power—we believe that we are, particularly through the local area agreement process—we must ensure on behalf of Parliament that that power is handled responsibly. We did not create the Scottish Parliament and say, “You guys can decide the structure of government.” We said, “We are devolving power on these functions, but we think that there have to be some boundaries to how you do it.”
On the mayoral appointment and the referendum, our policy is that the route through which a governance structure was created is the route through which it can be got rid of, except of course that the public always have the final say. In other words, if a mayor was created by a referendum, that mayor can be got rid of by referendum. We are not removing the right of referendum. At the moment, one can have a mayor either by the council proposing it and putting it to a public referendum that says yes, or by a trigger taking place through the petition process, after which a referendum says yes. Under the new proposals, you will still be able to petition to trigger a referendum for mayor; what will change is that a council will be able to create a mayor by resolution without having to go to a referendum. That is the change, and it will give greater freedom to councils.

Q167 Andrew Stunell:  The Minister has just said that a mayor can be created and removed by referendum. Is that the situation with existing mayors?

Phil Woolas:   Yes, but do not take me to Stoke-on-Trent, although I will go there if you want. Actually, that principle applies in Stoke-on-Trent as well.

Q168 Alison Seabeck:  A very quick point on the executive slate model and the potential for nine by-elections to follow a local election. Were you concerned, when you were considering whether to put it in, about the implications for public confusion and potential public apathy? Having been asked to vote for one lot, the public would be asked a few weeks later to vote again. Were you also concerned about the implications for the political parties in terms of the cost of running another set of elections?

Phil Woolas:   I am now being quizzed from the opposite side of the argument. The proposal and the idea—to which I personally see some advantages, in terms of leadership—came from local councils. Why not havea one-size-fits-all approach? The answer is partly devolutionary and partly to ask why that would be desirable. The geography of our councils is so different. One councillor said to me in the consultation that it took him a 120 mile round trip to chair a council meeting. That makes a directly elected executive model, if one does not want to directly elect a mayor, a more attractive proposition. That is one of the points about the evidence on which Alistair Burt quizzed us—whether we had an open mind on that. We genuinely want the Committee’s views and experience in order to see how we could ensure that it works, but ultimately, if the model is there and a council wants it, the council can have it.

Q169Tom Levitt (High Peak) (Lab): I understand that the three models that we have just been talking about do not apply to small councils—I think Angela used that phrase. Could you tell us what is a small council? Is it based on the number of councillors or the number of electors?

Angela E. Smith:   The population. The small councils with a population of 85,000 or fewer currently have what is called the enhanced computer system.

Tom Levitt: Sorry, was that figure 85,000?

Angela E. Smith:   It was 85,000 population or fewer.

Q170 Tom Levitt:  So how many district authorities would fall into that?

Angela E. Smith:   They that had that system already. I think there are—[Interruption.] I am informed that the figure is 83.

Q171 Tom Levitt:  On the directly elected executive—following from Alison Seabeck’s question—why is it that members of an executive cannot be councillors as well? What sort of message does that send out about accountability? Why should not members of an executive have responsibility for direct involvement in their own wards?

Phil Woolas:   What we are trying to do is to say, “Look, we want councils to have more powers over their areas and in conjunction with their partners.” The statutory duty to co-operate creates a whole new legal climate for local authorities. Within that climate, there has to be clear executive power and executive accountability. We think, as Angela has said before, that the double devolution—the third bit of the relationship change; the devolving down—should be done through the elected councillor. We are not devolving outside the democratic structure. We believe that our proposals enhance the status as well as the role and function of local ward councillors. That is really to say that the executive role and the scrutiny role are separate and the executive role and the community champion role are separate as well.
What we are trying to do is to radically change the status and importance of the councillors, because the overview and scrutiny function, which we may come to, will allow local councillors to scrutinise the whole of their area, not just the institution of the council. We believe that changes things radically. So that isthe political theory behind the executive and the accountability function.
I emphasise again that the councils will have to look at the implications for their areas, which will be widely different in, say, a relatively small, urban district and a large county or met.

Angela E. Smith:   Just to add—if it helps—that you would have an elected councillor holding themselves to account through overview and scrutiny. If they were part of the executive, they would be fulfilling two roles at the same time and would be holding themselves to account, in effect.

Q172 Tom Levitt:  That is not wildly different from what can happen now, with cabinet members in councils. When it comes to a mayor or a leader appointing cabinet members, is it the case that they must not be councillors, that they can cease to be councillors, or that they may be councillors—if they are appointed to a cabinet by a directly elected leader?

Angela E. Smith:   They must be councillors—I am being advised.

Q173 Tom Levitt:  They must be councillors?

Phil Woolas:   We are hesitating because of Stoke.

Christopher Chope: I think that the hon. Member for Stourbridge has a question as well.

Q174 Lynda Waltho:  May I take you back to Stoke? Your statement on 19 January indicated that a referendum on council structures could take place in Stoke before the elections that are due in 2009. I am wondering whether I can tease out a possible inconsistency with the retrospective extension of the minimum time between referendums from five to 10 years, which is proposed in clause 50. Will you need to make special provisions for Stoke to hold a second referendum within 10 years of the first one, which was in 2002?

Phil Woolas:   Stoke is the only authority in the country that has the elected mayor/city manager model. For those not familiar with that, it puts significant executive power in the hands of the senior official—what elsewhere would be known as the chief executive. Stoke is the only council in the country that has that model. Because we decided that that model was not one of the options that we wanted to make available, and because there is a strong consensus in Stoke itself, we do make an exception. But, of course, the mayoralty in Stoke was created by referendum and can be undone only by referendum. The mayor will stay in office until the end of his period of office, whatever happens, because that has been decided by referendum and election. So the answer is yes, we will make an exception.

Christopher Chope: That brings us to part 4, which deals with parishes.

Q175 Robert Neill:  The Ministers from the Department for Communities and Local Government will have heard the evidence that has been given, particularly on the concerns about parishes in the London context. I would be interested to hear your response to that. A number of bodies seem to be flagging up concerns. There is confusion about how parishes in London fit with enhancing the role of the ward councillor as the local champion, and about accountability and responsibility and how that fits with a strong leadership model. As we have discussed, there is also the risk of extremists or other interest groups hijacking the parish council. Has that had any influence on your thinking as to how you might go forward?

Angela E. Smith: It has been very interesting taking evidence from the different bodies and hearing the different information that they have come up with. Unlock Democracy was very different from some of the other groups that have spoken to us. There may be some teething problems in London, but given that we already have about 9,000 parish councils across the country, there has not been a great confusion over accountability and the electorate recognising the respective roles of parish councils and district councillors.
I do not anticipate an enormous problem in London. There may be some initial teething problems, but all parishes operate in a two-tier or single-tier authority area at present. In some areas, that is dealt with by the parish charter, which outlines the respective roles and responsibilities. As I say, there may be some teething problems, but I do not anticipate an enormous problem.
Special interest and extremist groups have been mentioned. The issue of community cohesion is very important here. It is up to the district or the borough councils to make a decision on whether or not it is appropriate to have a parish council in their area. Community cohesion is one issue that will be taken into account when the council is making that decision. So I think that the problem of extremism or a group setting itself apart from the rest of the area can be dealt with in the guidance to the council on the criteria for making a decision.

Q176 Robert Neill:  Can you tell us when we are likely to have that guidance? The Secretary of State, responding to a comment of mine on Second Reading, said that there would be guidance. Obviously, we want to know when we are going to have it and what form it will take.

Angela E. Smith: I am just checking on the timing.

Q177 The Chairman: Mr. Prout, do you want to speak to the Committee in your own right? You are perfectly entitled to.

David Prout:   We published an implementation plan for the White Paper, which I think gives a date for the publication of guidance on parishes. The guidance will be in place before the legislation comes into force. I simply cannot remember off the top of my head the precise date that it is due to be published.

Q178 Alistair Burt: In looking at the criteria for parish councils in relation to the granting of the power of well-being, what criteria are you going to use? There is a sense that we want as many parish councils as possible to be involved. Will the criteria be very restrictive or quite wide?

Angela E. Smith:  I think that we could use as a starting point the quality parish scheme that we have at present, although it will be adapted and updated. The things that we will be looking for will be that they are representative and engage all parts of the community, that they give vision and a sense of identity to the community and that they are effectively and properly managed councils. Those criteria are currently in the quality parish scheme.

Q179 Alistair Burt:  As far as I am aware, that is a very small number of councils—something like 3 per cent. That seems quite tight. It would be interesting to know whether you intend to widen it significantly beyond that, even though you want to keep some degree of control.

Angela E. Smith: I would want to widen it significantly in terms of numbers, but I do not think that we would want to reduce the capacity of a council in that sense. Having the power of well-being is something that extends the role of the council. We would need to be sure that the council had the capacity to manage that. So yes, we would like to see the number of councils significantly increased, but not by reducing the criteria or the ability of the council to manage its own affairs.

Q180 Alistair Burt:  Do you think the likelihood of parish councils surviving in large numbers is good? There are no proposals within the Department to reduce significantly the number of parish councils over the next few years?

Angela E. Smith: To reduce? No, not at all.

Q181 Andrew Stunell:  The Bill contains a proposal that people can be appointed to parish councils as well as elected and co-opted. What led the Government to think that such people should not get on to parishes via the election route? What was the thinking there?

Angela E. Smith:   In the first place, it is the choice of the parish council but, in some cases, people may not feel that they want to go via the election route. It may be someone involved in the local church or the head teacher of a school. It is a matter for the local parish council. If it wishes to appoint members, it can do so if it thinks that it is appropriate.

Q182 Andrew Stunell:  The Government comment that many parish councils, in fact, are not contested and that there is a shortage of candidates. Community leaders seem to be the obvious people to go through the electoral route to get on to parishes. Can you elaborate on why you think that they should have a by-pass past the electoral system?

Phil Woolas:   Common sense is the answer. An appointed member cannot take part in a decision to co-opt a member. As members of the Committee know, at the moment when a vacancy exists a co-option can take place because of the problem that Mr. Stunell outlined. The National Association of Local Councils reports that it is useful to be able to have members with particular standing in the community or expertise. The head teacher whom Angela mentioned is a good example. In my constituency, one of the museum chairs is a member of the parish council. The safeguard is that they are not allowed to take part in the decision to co-opt others.
It is common sense really. The 8,600 and so parish councils range from some that are an annual dinner through to some that are bigger than the smallest districts. A desire to empower communities and build a sense of community is behind the ability to appoint such people.

Q183 Andrew Stunell:  In addition to the existing power of co-option?

Phil Woolas:   Yes.

Christopher Chope: That brings us to part 5. Andrew Gwynne.

Q184Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): I have a number of questions. First, strong leadership models require equally strong scrutiny functions. As a former scrutiny committee chair, I certainly agree that that is the case. Part 5 sets out the new powers for scrutiny committees. Some of the criticism of the 2000 Act was that scrutiny took time to bed in. Support from many authorities was not in place for members, and members did not have the necessary skills. Do you accept that the original scrutiny proposals were flawed? How do you see the Bill making them better?

Phil Woolas:   The scrutiny role is working very well in some areas, but not so well in others. The best scrutiny committees involve consensus across parties, rather like our Select Committee system. They task and finish reports. They examine areas of policy. They bring forward solutions, just like Select Committees, as well as highlight problems. It is an evolving process. The criticism that was aired on Second Reading and elsewhere of not having the old committee system was, “How do you get councils involved? How do you bring them up? How do you give them experience? How do you involve them in decision making?” We think that to enhance overview and scrutiny is a very important way of doing that.
I personally think that the idea that being a member of the housing sub-committee is a tremendous insight into the loop of power in authorities is stretching it a bit. The overview and scrutiny committee conferences in local government—the national events—are a substantial part of the calendar. In essence, we want to be place-shapers in respect of the performance regime, the accountability regime and the way in which councils are judged. We want the overview and scrutiny committees to be able to hold to account the whole place, as far as is possible like a Select Committee. The parallel is not too strong because, of course, there are legal differences. We think that that will radically change the way in which public services are delivered and the responsiveness of not only councils but public institutions and others.

Q185 Andrew Gwynne:  That takes us to the next question very nicely. Earlier, and you have just reiterated it, you said that you wanted to see councils scrutinise the whole of the area, not just the functions of the council. Would you expect all local partners, housing associations, housing trusts, sports trusts and arm’s length companies to co-operate with the council? If they were to refuse, how would you enforce that?

Phil Woolas:   Where the power applies—I will talk in a moment about the limits—there is an obligation to appear or present evidence and an obligation upon that body that it must pay regard, under law, to the findings of the overview and scrutiny committee. That, we think, is a significant change. Now of course, the number of bodies that are included within that is where it gets difficult because registered social landlords are not statutory public sector bodies in the sense, for example, that a PCT is. We believe that the fact that the overview and scrutiny committee has got that power will create not just a legal framework but a climate in which that is expected, and that will greatly enhance the status of the councillors and of the local council itself.

Q186 Andrew Gwynne:  However, one of the keys to effective scrutiny is having access to information. Access to information from the partners is going to be crucial if these enhanced scrutiny powers are going to work. This is particularly an issue for public services that were previously provided by councils, where, for example, the Local Government Act 1972 access to information regulations applied. Now, if services are run by trusts or private companies, not even the Freedom of Information Act 2000 applies in a number of cases. So will scrutiny be relying on good will or are we going to beef up the access to information regulations?

Phil Woolas:   The obligation will be on the commissioner of the service that is under scrutiny. That is an important point because say, for example, you had a private company or a charity delivering a particular service and it refused to co-operate—the law as we propose will allow it to refuse to co-operate—we believe that the power of overview and scrutiny and the ability to call in and quiz the commissioning officer and officers, would have a powerful effect and improve the current situation.

Q187Dr. Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): I wonder whether the Department has given any consideration to having a formal role for MPs in the overview and scrutiny process or in the implementation of local area agreements?

Phil Woolas:   I know that this is a historic Committee, but we are not proposing a statutory role for Members of Parliament. Outside of the legislation, we do see a very important role for MPs, particularly in the development of the new performance regime. In two cases, Members of Parliament chair—

Christopher Chope: I am going to stop you there because we are only concerned with what is in the Bill rather than what might be in another one.

Phil Woolas:   Consideration was given to that, but we ruled it out given the unique status of Members of Parliament as legislators.

Q188 Robert Neill:  I was interested in why primary care trusts are among the list of authorities under a duty to cooperate in clauses 79 and 83 but not the other trusts—not the acute trusts or foundation trusts. Why? That seems anomalous.

Phil Woolas:   We are thinking about it.

Bob Neill: Given the LGA’s evidence that they are concerned about it, I hope that you are thinking positively about it.

Phil Woolas:   Yes. Trusts and foundation trusts are different from the other main partners, but we recognise that there is a powerful argument and I think that the LGA gave evidence in favour of that, did they not?

Bob Neill: They did, yes.

Phil Woolas:   And it has been made by others. Because of our history, all these relationships are complicated. If you look at the police and to whom the police are accountable, it is not as straightforward as elsewhere. Foundation trusts and trusts do present a different model and have different models of accountability. On the other hand, the sorts of things we need them to co-operate with in local areas is a very important part of the picture, so the views of the Committee will be sought on this.

Q189 Alistair Burt:  The White Paper mentions an upper limit on targets of about 35, but when it comes to the Bill, you just cannot quite bring yourselves to put down a number, just in case it is too binding. Why did not you put a number in the Bill? Would you be minded to accept a number in the Bill if somebody suggested it?

Phil Woolas:   There might be circumstances where you would want less, or there might be more. We think that that approach—

Q190 Alistair Burt:  It is an upper limit. It is not a mandatory number.

Phil Woolas:   We think it is too prescriptive and too untrustworthy—can I say that, Mr. Chope?—but not by the hon. Gentleman.

Q191 Alistair Burt:  No. But the trust thing goes the other way. The experience of local government and others is that central Government comes along with more and more. The purpose of having the upper limit in the Bill is that that makes sure that there can be no breach of trust on your side. They will know how many targets there are going to be. Otherwise, the concern will be simply that there will be more and more added as Ministers get put under pressure on different things and it will, therefore, become an easy way to increase the burden on local government once again.

Phil Woolas:   Perhaps it would be helpful if I explain where this came from and what regime this is trying to create. At the moment, there are between 600 and 1,200 indicators. It sounds a terrible amount, but it is mitigated by the fact that that is across the whole range of local government functions, which is substantial. But it is clearly a lot. Our justification for that is that it has helped to drive improvement. The number of councils that have improved under the Audit Commission measurement has got there. But our analysis is completely different from the one that has been expounded on Second Reading. Our analysis is that local government has improved and is taking more place-shaping powers. The reforms that we have put into place in other areas of public services can at times, I admit, look piecemeal and like a kaleidoscope rather than a jigsaw puzzle. We see this as putting together the jigsaw puzzle.

Christopher Chope: I think we are going to call a halt to the answer there. Alistair, do you have any more questions?

Alistair Burt: No.

Q192 Sir Peter Soulsby:  I am interested in the responsibilities that might be included in the Bill for local authorities to co-operate with others beyond their boundaries. That is particularly a problem for those urban authorities with very tightly drawn boundaries, because the solutions to their problems often lie beyond those boundaries. What is included in the Bill appears to be fine in terms of requirement to co-operate within the boundaries, but what is, or what might there be, in the Bill to enable a requirement for co-operation beyond boundaries?

Phil Woolas:   Conscious of your strictures, Mr. Chope, the policy on multi-area agreements enhances what the Bill provides. The process that we are going through in the comprehensive spending review, the process that we are going through in this Bill and the change in the legislative framework that it puts forward—particularly on the duty to co-operate in the relationship across boundaries, which we mentioned before—we believe is, again, a permissive arrangement in respect of cross-boundary co-operation, of which there is, of course, already a lot. The second bit of the architecture is the commissioning role, which changes that relationship completely, because one can commission outside boundaries.

Q193 Alison Seabeck:  Are you confident that the safeguards set out in clause 59, which are designed to prevent community calls for action being abused by special interest groups or extreme groups, are strong enough? Have you considered the implications of allowing greater freedom for the public to take part in the decision-making process and the potential for two CCFAs with directly opposite aims to be running in parallel with each other, and what that could do to some communities? In Tower Hamlets, you might have the British National party running one and the rest of the community running one entirely counter to that. It could be quite an interesting situation. It could be damaging to community cohesion.

Angela E. Smith:   In a sense, there are two gateway processes—two gatekeepers. The first is a local councillor. If a matter is brought to a local councillor through a community call for action which should be dealt with in the course of the councillor’s normal role, that would not necessarily be fed upwards to overview and scrutiny. But if there were two opposing issues and a referral to overview and scrutiny, it would be for overview and scrutiny to decide how to deal with the issues, and how much time to give them. So the second gatekeeper is the overview and scrutiny committee—that is its role.

Q194 Andrew Stunell:  The other part of that is how a legitimate call for action gets some action from external bodies and partners. For example, a dentist might no longer be taking NHS patients, in which case one can easily imagine that there might be a call for something to happen. What responsibility has the outside body—in that instance it would be the PCT—to respond to that call?

Angela E. Smith:   In that case, PCTs are listed among the bodies that should co-operate with the local authority, and they would have a duty to have regard to the views of the committee. That would assist in action being taken. If asked, the PCT would be required to appear before the committee, as well have a duty to have regard to the views of the committee.

Q195 Lynda Waltho:  You mentioned overview and scrutiny taking on the work from a community call for action. The weaknesses have been discussed, and there is concern about whether such work will make it even more difficult for overview and scrutiny to develop appropriate time and resources to perform its functions and hold the executive to account on policy decisions. Will you comment on that?

Angela E. Smith:   The work will enhance the role of overview and scrutiny. It will be for the overview and scrutiny committee to work out its work plan and how it will deal with these issues. In time, the committees might find that there is a need for additional support, but I do not think that we are imposing an overly onerous burden on them by asking overview and scrutiny to look at community calls for action. They will have to plan how much time and effort is put in. If there are frivolous issues of the type that Ms Seabeck mentioned, I assume that those issues will be dismissed. Others might require more time, and might involve a similar process to that involved in calling the executive to account, and be part and parcel of it. But it will be the responsibility of the committees to plan their workload and manage the issues with which they have to deal.

Q196 Alistair Burt:  We had a couple of discussions on crime and disorder issues being excluded from community calls for action. I know that that is covered by a different provision, but based on the discussions, the witnesses’ evidence and the briefings, are you in any way moved to have a single system and include that area?

Angela E. Smith:   I listened carefully to the discussion on this subject during the evidence sessions. We considered having a single route. However, if a community call for action is presented to a local councillor, it is presented to an elected member of the body to which it is going, whereas police authorities are indirectly elected, so they cannot take matters up in the same way. The circumstances are different. I am not sure whether having a similar process would work. I think the proposal we are making is the more appropriate one for local authorities. We considered the matter and I am not minded to look at it again to open up the argument, but I have taken the comments on board.

Q197 Tom Levitt:  In many parts of the country, community sector and voluntary sector organisations are closely involved with local authorities through local strategic partnerships, local area agreements and so on. In many other parts of the country, such co-operative arrangements are sadly lacking. Can you assure us that the Bill will promote active involvement of community and voluntary sector organisations through dissemination of good practice, to ensure that they are recognised as true partners in community development?

Angela E. Smith:   The guidance will say that there must be a statement of community involvement, and I do not think that true community involvement can be shown without engagement of the community and voluntary sector. So yes, that will be covered by the guidance.

Christopher Chope: That brings us to part 6 of the Bill.

Q198Mr. David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): Given the proposals to extend local authority capacity to create byelaws, why not allow local authorities the power to enforce those byelaws with fixed penalty notices, without the say-so of the Secretary of State?

Angela E. Smith:   I am sorry, I did not quite hear.

David Burrowes: There is provision for extending local authorities’ powers to create byelaws, but I understand that enforcement of those byelaws is subject to the Secretary of State’s approval.

Phil Woolas:   One witness said that this is one of the most welcome bits of the Bill. I cannot tell you how welcome it is from my point of view. At the moment, a byelaw that is set by a parish or council has to be ratified by the Secretary of State. The most recent one was in the case of Carrick district, which is in Cornwall, I am informed. It was to do with—Mr. Rowsell?

Paul Rowsell:   It is to do with the use of land near the coast and deals with how people should behave properly on that land in relation to parking cars, resting overnight, and similar issues. That piece of land is near the coast for surfing, so that byelaw is about good behaviour.

Phil Woolas:   At the moment, the Secretary of State has to sign that off. You might have got the impression that she herself has not been personally involved in that decision.

Christopher Chope: We now go on to Part 7.

Q199 Patrick Hall:  The White Paper flagged up the idea of securing public participation in councils’ best value reviews. First, since there have been some question marks around this, is the best value process set to continue? If so, how might the public be involved, particularly on an informed basis?

Phil Woolas:   We see the proposal as a crucial part of the legislative changes. I talked before about the duty to co-operate; this is about the duty to involve, devolve and consult, and how one makes that real. The legislation creates a framework where the three documents for each local authority are three essential pillars of the strategy: the sustainable communities policy, the local development framework and, now, the local area agreement. In those, and in the meeting of targets, we are building in this legal duty to devolve. So, the best value regime certainly does develop.
We are proposing to put in a number of check mechanisms to monitor whether that duty is being implemented. That relates, in part, to the voluntary sector point that Tom Levitt made. Those are annual risk assessments, the audit and inspection itself, which will have a greater focus on the citizen’s role, the annual publication of national performance indicators including citizen satisfaction, which I believe will be part of quite a change in the way people view councils and in the way they are reported, and the new overview and scrutiny arrangements. So we see this as the bottom-up bit of the new legislative framework.

Christopher Chope: Alistair Burt has a question onpart 8.

Q200 Alistair Burt:  The Local Government Association would have preferred what it calls “a more forward looking approach” to inspection, giving authorities a clearer idea of what they might expect over a two or three-year period. Were you not moved by their evidence and proposals to think the matter through again and introduce that?

Phil Woolas:   Sorry, Alastair, can you repeat the question?

Alistair Burt: I am sorry. This is about local services inspection and audit. The LGA has proposed what it called in its brief “a more forward looking approach”, in which the Audit Commission and other inspectorates would “set out a forward programme of inspections for a locality over a 2/3 yr period”. That is not what is in the Bill, but would you not be minded to move toward that?

David Prout:   The proposal set out in one of the schedules to the Bill is that the Audit Commission should, effectively, act as a gatekeeper for the other inspectorates, so when the inspectors are planning their work plans, normally on an annual basis, they will get together to co-ordinate any inspections of individual local authorities. We think that that will do the job that has been asked for by local government, of ensuring that we do not have one inspectorate after another piling into a local area. We expect that system to work perfectly adequately without further provisions.

Q201 Andrew Stunell:  Will the Minister have a second go at answering the point I made on Second Reading about the reduction in the powers of the Audit Commission to take on commissions from local government?

Phil Woolas:   The point that the hon. Gentleman made on Second Reading is, as I think I indicated from a sedentary position, correct. This is about the role of the Audit Commission. Our concern is that at the moment a council can commission the Audit Commission to do a report, but the Audit Commission is also the inspectorate, so we think that there is a potential conflict of interest.

Christopher Chope: That brings us on to part 9.

Q202 Tom Levitt:  In the absence of an overriding national body of last resort for investigating and upholding standards in public life for councillors, what is to stop different councils adopting their own standards and leaving us without national standards at all?

Phil Woolas:   First, the revised code of conduct, which is a national requirement. Secondly, we again strike to the heart of the philosophical debate over the Bill: if we devolve, how do we ensure equity? That must be through the guidance and the training. There is a debate about financing, of course. There still will be the national board. We are proposing to revise the code of conduct, but we have to bear in mind the point that has been made.

Q203 Andrew Stunell:  There is clearly an area of difficulty about the degree to which the code should apply to members when they are, so to speak, on duty and when they are off duty. The Bill proposes to change that boundary. Will you say something about why you want to do that?

Phil Woolas:   Because we think that the situation at the moment is too authoritarian. We think that the judgments in some cases, particularly one involving the Mayor of London, require us to clarify. The purpose of the conduct regime is to ensure good conduct for propriety reasons, but also to give public confidence, and we think that the balance on the second is out of kilter. We are trying to define more clearly the role of the councillor as a councillor and that of a private individual, so that only criminal conviction in terms of private behaviour can be subject to the regime; and outside of that rather like—someone made this point earlier—with Members of Parliament. That is what we are trying to do.

Christopher Chope: We have no questions on part 10, so that brings us to part 11.

Q204 Patrick Hall:  The Minister of State for Health and her colleague, Mr. Vivian, will know that for some time I have been involved in patient and public involvement matters through the all-party group. I have met a lot of members of patients forums, so there are many issues that I would like to raise in Committee when we come to part 11, but will restrict myself to just four today—if there is time for four.
 First, there is a pressing need for a clearer picture to emerge on how LINKs will look and work. I understand that the Government do not want to impose a detailed structure for the many different parts of the country, but I think that the Bill is too vague. As a result, there is a great deal of concern and speculation.

Christopher Chope: Shall we let the Minister deal with one point at a time?

Patrick Hall: Yes indeed, but I had not finished that point, Mr. Chope. To address that gap, would Ministers consider, during the next couple of weeks, letting the Committee have sight of some draft guidance for councils on how they would commission the host organisations to set up LINKs in their own areas?

Rosie Winterton:   Thank you for the opportunity to talk about how we envisage LINKs working, Mr. Chope. I am aware that, even though we tried to set that out in our response to the consultation, people might still have questions.
At the moment, we have a draft model contract that we would issue to local authorities to enable them to procure the host organisations. I am more than happy to consider whether we could pass that on, as long there are no commercial difficulties. It might also be helpful if I were to give the Committee an idea of what would be in the regulations which would establish the LINKs from the primary legislation. If that would be helpful, I would be more than happy to look at it, as long as I am not advised that there are any commercial difficulties that would arise from that.

Q205 Patrick Hall:  I think that the Committee would find that helpful; I certainly would.
The issue of independence has been raised a great deal by current members of patients forums. How does the Minister think that the independence of LINKs will be secured? There is a concern that they will end up as the creatures of local government—that is to say, the controlling political group.

Rosie Winterton:   As I have said, LINKs will be established by the local authorities putting out a contract, which would perhaps be run by voluntary organisations as happens at the moment. At present, the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health puts out the contracts to local citizens advice bureaux and other organisations, which service the patients forums. The system will be exactly the same. Local authorities have quite a lot of experience of letting and monitoring contracts in that way. I am quite confident that the independence can be preserved.

Q206 Mr. Hall:  The Bill does not propose a national organisation or a national voice for LINKs. We might not want a top-down, expensive, national organisation, but I think that sooner or later we will require some national co-ordination, a means of communication between LINKs and a means of learning from best and worst practice. That calls for some form of national organisation. Will the Minister give that some consideration?

Rosie Winterton:   Through our NHS Centre for Involvement, which is a centre of excellence, we are able to exchange best practice and to work with LINKs organisations to pass on that sort of information. If LINKs wish to set up a national body, there is nothing to stop them from using their funding to do that. If they all wish to get together to form a subscription organisation, in rather the same way that community health councils used to, there is nothing to stop them, but we do not want to have funding tied up in a national body that could otherwise go directly to the LINKs organisations. We are very keen that funding should go to the front line, so that LINKs can operate as effectively as possible.

Q207 Mr. Hall:  I am sure that we will return to that, because LINKs will want to do something along those lines, I am sure, but will need resources to do so.
As we all may know, the Select Committee on Health today opened its inquiry into PPI, which will include the Government’s LINKs proposals in the Bill. The Select Committee is due to report at the end of March, so a parallel process is going on, which is rather unusual. It would be a shame for this Committee, the Bill and the House to miss out on the points that the Select Committee raises. How do Ministers think that those deliberations can help to inform the legislation?

Rosie Winterton:   I am not exactly sure about thedate on which the Select Committee is going to publish—

Patrick Hall: It is hoping to do so by the end of March.

Rosie Winterton:   By the end of March is it? I suppose that it is in this Committee’s hands to decide whether it can ask a Select Committee for the evidence it has been given.

Q208 Tom Levitt:  “Abolition” is a very definite and emotive word that some people have found frightening in the context of the measures in the Bill. To what extent do you expect LINKs to start from scratch when they are established? To what extent can there be a seamless merge from the present arrangement of forums to the new LINKs?

Rosie Winterton:   We envisage that when Royal Assent is given, we will be able to send out our model contracts to local authorities and to get the regulations through Parliament to enable that to happen. We envisage that patients forums will cease to operate at the end of December 2007, and that LINKs will start from January 2008. We think that the process should be seamless.
I would like to take this opportunity to say that the Government feel very strongly that everybody who is currently a member of a patients forum should be on the new LINKs. We value very much the work that those people have done, but because of the way in which the NHS is changing—we have something like a £90 billion budget, 80 per cent. of which is devolved to local level, and PCTs have much stronger commissioning powers—we need a strong organisation at local level that can contribute toward the PCTs’ role of defining local health needs and how they will prioritise their spending. We need a strong body that is able to scrutinise decisions and increase patient and public involvement rather than organisations that are, in a sense, tied to institutions, as patients forums are. We want the members of the forums to be involved in the new LINKs.

Q209 Alistair Burt:  Even the stoutest ministerial heart will have blanched at some of the evidence that we heard on Tuesday. You will have been made aware of it or will have read the evidence given by the people from Health Link. On Tuesday, Elizabeth Manero said, “The other day, I met someone from my local patient and public involvement forum who was involved in mental health and who talked about the despair and disillusionment of the forum members, many of whom are mental health service users. They had found, yet again, that they were told, ‘You are really great; you are doing a great job, but we are going to get rid of you.’”——[Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2007; c. 56.]
Sally Brearley was moved to quote Bertold Brecht’s piece, “The Solution”, saying that when the people forfeited the confidence of the Government, it would be easier for the Government to dissolve the people and elect another—it was strong stuff. I asked her why she thought the Government are doing what they are doing, and she did not have an answer. Those people have been right at the heart of patients forums and understand the health service, but they have no idea why—yet again—the Government are scrapping one thing and setting up something new. What is your answer to that?

Rosie Winterton:   Mental health is a very good example of how, under the new system, we will beable to scrutinise and improve services for mental health service users. The problem that they have often faced is that mental health is considered to be, in a way, over there. Under the new system, PCTs havestrong commissioning powers. It is important that when services are being scrutinised and decisions are being made, the mental health voice is there at the table.
The other thing that mental health service users will often say is that their mental health needs might be looked after, but their physical health needs are not. We are asking what happens to a patient in their pathway. A mental health service user will very often also need support from, for example, local authority social services. The LINKs will have new powers to look at the joint commissioning that often occurs already in mental health and be able to scrutinise both the health side and the social care side.
There is nothing in the LINKs to stop specialisms. If people want to specialise in mental health aspects of service provision, there is absolutely no reason why they should not. If they want to have a special relationship with a mental health trust, they can, but the discussions about mental health will be brought to the wider table. There is also the possibility that organisations could be joined to the new LINKs, so that every local member of Mind or Rethink, for example, could become a member of the LINK. That is just not possible at the moment. I see it as widening patient and public involvement. Mental health is a very good example of a service that would benefit from wider scrutiny.

Q210 Alistair Burt:  Mental health was just the example that was given of a forum, but the complaints that we heard the other day were about the forums themselves being abolished. There is a sense that the Department said that the forums do excellent work, but, if they do, why are they going? Why do people who ought to be able to understand your points seem so unaware of the benefits that you spelled out and so hostile to the change being imposed on them?

Rosie Winterton:   I have written personally to all forum members twice to say that we value their work and hope that they will become involved in the new LINKs. I was trying to send the message that we see the measures as adding to the existing powers of patient forums.
An example is a LINK that wants to look at what happens to people who have had a stroke. Somebody who has had a stroke will probably enter through accident and emergency. They might go into a specialised stroke unit, then into a rehabilitation unit and then back into the community. Again, they will need the services of social care. As services increasingly come out of the hospital setting into the community, we want a LINK to have the ability to scrutinise all those services and not be confined, as many are at the moment, to making reports about their own institutions and not necessarily about what happens to the patient. We do not say that they will not be able to look at particular institutions, as I have said, but we want to widen their remit to give them more power to find out what exactly happens to patients and what patients’ experiences are in accessing health and social care.

Christopher Chope: The Minister’s response has provoked a lot of interest among Members, and I will try to fit them all in before the 4 o’clock deadline.

Q211 Sir Peter Soulsby:  Despite the reassurance that the Minister has given today and by letter to members of the existing forums, they remain considerably concerned that their engagement and expertise will be lost in the transfer to the new LINKs. What mechanism does she envisage to ensure that it will not be lost, and that they will have the opportunity to participate if they wish to?

Rosie Winterton:   I do not think that I can do any more than to say that there is absolutely no reason why they should not automatically just join the LINKs organisations.

Q212 Sir Peter Soulsby:  It is that “automatically” bit that is perhaps the key. What does that imply in terms of a mechanism that it is indeed automatic and guaranteed?

Rosie Winterton:   When the host organisation is awarded a contract by a local authority, it will ask, “Who would like to join the LINK?” I should think that every patient forum member will say “I would like to join it.” That is not like patient forums, for which there was a process of appointment. People can automatically become members if that is what they wish to do. I imagine that patient forum members will be among the first who want to become involved in the new organisations.

Q213 Mr. Burrowes:  It is appreciated that LINKs will be allowed to enter NHS premises. However, the words “inspect” and “inspection” do not appear in the Bill. Why not?

Rosie Winterton:   Because we want to be sure that organisations such as the Healthcare Commission carry out inspections. One of the things that patient forum members told us was that they felt that their inspections were considered to be secondary to the inspections carried out by the regulators. Patient forum members were anxious that they should continue to be able to go into premises—again, I use the example of a local stroke unit—if LINKs say that they wanted to see how it worked, and to report on it. We would expect them to be able to go in and do that.
We have to be careful. At the moment, all patient forum members are checked by the Criminal Records Bureau, but we do not believe that that will be possible for everybody on a LINK if, as we hope, many more people become involved and, possibly, whole organisations join. We expect a number of people to be given the right to go into hospitals, for example.

Q214 Tom Levitt:  Carrying on the same theme, I welcomed your example of being able to follow the whole patient experience—if I can use that phrase—in terms of monitoring and scrutiny. So far as social care is concerned, that is a welcome extension into the health forum business. Clearly a lot of social care is provided in the private sector. Does that present particular difficulties and what discussions haveyou had with private sector care providers in that respect?

Rosie Winterton:   It will extend to the private sector. Let me go back a little to the discussion on inspection. We will have to be careful about who has the ability to enter people’s homes; we must be sensitive about that. We will continue to discuss how that should take place, but it is right to say that a lot of social care services are commissioned from the private sector. We expect that to be an important element when considering whether local patient needs are satisfactorily met by what is commissioned.

Q215 Robert Neill:  I was just interested, in terms of your earlier answer, in the growing links between social care and mental health, for example. Is that not another strong argument for the mental health trusts to be under a duty to co-operate in the same way as primary care trusts?

Rosie Winterton:   They will be.

Bob Neill: They will be?

Meredith Vivian:   Mental health trusts will be.

Bob Neill: But what about the acute trusts?

Phil Woolas:   You are right; it is an argument. I want to underline what we said before, because—

Christopher Chope: We have to stop now because we are not allowed to go on beyond Four o’clock. Perhaps the Ministers might respond to that last question in writing.

Bob Neill: I would be grateful for that.

Rosie Winterton:   Clause 155 specifies the duty to co-operate.

Christopher Chope: Because we have to stop at four, I should like to thank everybody for coming along and for answering the questions. Because this is the last evidence-taking session—unless we have more later on—I should like to thank particularly the Committee Clerks and those in the Clerks Department. Without their assistance, we would never have been able to make as much progress as we have done. Thank you, also, to all the witnesses for coming along today.
 Further consideration adjourned—[Jonathan Shaw.]

Adjourned accordingly at Four o’clock till Tuesday6 February at half-past Ten o’clock.